Standing Committee A

[Mr. Jonathan Sayeed in the Chair]

Vehicles (Crime) Bill

Clause 17 - Register of registration plate suppliers

Amendment proposed, [this day]: No. 4, in page 9, line 35, leave out 
`and such fee (if any) as may be prescribed,'.—[Mr. Chidgey.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Jonathan Sayeed: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking amendment No. 5, in page 9, line 40, leave out
`and such fee (if any) as may be prescribed,'.

David Chidgey: Good afternoon, Mr. Sayeed, I welcome you to the Committee as Chairman. I am sure that we will enjoy your chairmanship in the coming days.
 We have had a full, interesting and helpful debate, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Charles Clarke: I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Sayeed. We had a good sitting this morning, and we are delighted that you are here.
 We have discussed much of the substance of the clause. It makes it mandatory for the Secretary of State—which in practice means the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency—to establish and maintain a register of registration plate suppliers. The clause allows for regulations to be made to set out the details to be held on the register. Those details could include the addresses of all premises from which registration plates are supplied. The Secretary of State is obliged to disclose information from the register to anyone who requests it, and may set a fee for such requests—we have clarified that it is only a ``may'' and not a ``must''—and the process must be established by regulation to be debated in the House. We have also stated that we expect large parts of the register to be available on the web, and therefore to be available free of charge to any citizen.

John Bercow: I also welcome you warmly to the chairmanship of the Committee, Mr. Sayeed.
 The Minister rightly observed that, ordinarily, information would be provided on request, but in the light of subsection (6), will he advise us as to the circumstances in which it would be thought appropriate to withhold information from individuals? In other words, what would be the nature of the persons who would not be entitled to receive it? In paragraph (b), what might be the nature of the information that a person otherwise entitled to receive information would not be entitled to receive?

Charles Clarke: I shall address that shortly when I come to the end of my remarks. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise that issue. We discussed those points when dealing with the amendments.
 It is important to ensure that any business connected with number plate supply can determine whether a supplier is registered, as it will be an offence to trade with an unregistered supplier. A certified copy of the register, or an extract from it, will be conclusive evidence of a supplier's authenticity, and information may be disclosed to the police either in bulk or case by case. Access to the information will provide an audit trail, and will enable the police to trace and investigate suppliers that are believed to have supplied false plates. 
 I shall now deal with the intervention of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). We addressed the issue of the description of information that might not be supplied under subsection (6)(b) when debating the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Eastleigh and the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). We intend, when drafting the regulations, to discuss carefully with the industry whether everything in the register should be disclosed to everybody, or whether there are particular categories of information that it might not be appropriate to disclose. I emphasise the word ``might''. Such categories might include personal addresses or telephone numbers rather than addresses of businesses. There are many examples of such categories, but we have not come to a firm view, so we are including the provision that the Secretary of State may, after consultation with the industry, specify information that is not to be made public. Should the Secretary of State do so, it will be set out in regulation for the House to consider in whatever way it thinks appropriate.

John Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Charles Clarke: I will in a second.
 On the descriptions of persons who are not entitled to be supplied with information under subsection (3), it is at the forefront of our minds that all such issues are associated with organised crime, and that supply of information might not be appropriate in that context. Again, we intend to consult on that. We shall also widely consult the industry and organisations represented in the vehicle crime reduction action team, such as insurers, the car industry and the police, on categories in subsections (6)(a) and (b) before laying regulations for debate by the House.

John Bercow: The Minister might have given me a clue to the solution in his reference to debate. A moment ago, he referred to the details of the regulations to be considered by the House in such terms or by such means as it thinks fit. He went on to use the word ``debate''. The detail must require some reflection—it would have been provided by now if it did not—so will he confirm that there will be an opportunity for the House properly to debate the matters under the affirmative procedure, and that they will not simply be nodded through on the negative procedure, which admits of no debate?
 Will the Minister also confirm, in the name of good regulation, that there will be a minimum consultation period of three months on the intended regulations, and a suitable period, possibly a similar one of three months, of notice of the requirement to implement those regulations?

Charles Clarke: I reject the proposition that we have not provided the detail. That is factually incorrect.

John Bercow: I am not complaining about that.

Charles Clarke: I accept that; I withdraw my objection. We have gone about matters perfectly appropriately by setting out the legislation and procedure and then consulting in a reasonable way.
 On every Bill with which I have dealt, there has been an entertaining set of exchanges about negative and affirmative procedure.

John Bercow: I always raise it.

Charles Clarke: That reduces some of the weight that his raising it on this occasion might otherwise have had. Frankly, the various regulations in the Bill have been intended for negative rather than affirmative procedure as a result of comparison with some of the issues that the House needs to consider. I dealt in the last Session with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill and the Terrorism Bill. The scale of the issues around the regulations is less significant and serious than some of those considered under affirmative procedure.
 It is conventional for Oppositions of all parties to say that they want affirmative resolutions on everything, and conventional for Governments of all parties—including the Government whom the hon. Member for Buckingham supported, although not as a Member, before 1997—to go for negative procedure at all times. As a Government, we have been open on agreeing affirmative procedure on aspects of the Bills that I have dealt with for the Home Office. The question is one of a balance of judgment. In this case, the balance that we have struck is that negative procedures are right. I know that the hon. Gentleman will disagree with that—as he says, he disagrees every time the issue comes along, as he is entitled to do—but that is our approach. 
 I do not have details of the consultation periods, but the three-month period that the hon. Gentleman describes is reasonable, and we can talk about it. I will write to him further on the subject, if I may.

John Bercow: I am reassured by the Minister. Several amendments were tabled to the clause. I made it clear when tabling them that I was not certain that the clause needed to be amended, but my hon. Friends and I wanted to test the water with some suggestions. In that context, I was relatively reassured by a good deal of what the Minister said, so I do not choose to press the amendments to a vote. It is not my intention to dissent from the proposition that the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Chidgey: I shall add briefly to the comments made by the hon. Member for Buckingham.
 I have been gratified by the Minister's openness in dealing with our amendments. We may not be entirely satisfied with the responses, but I appreciate his earnestness.

Charles Clarke: I am in a position to say to the hon. Gentleman, following the earlier exchange, that the Cabinet Office guidance is that three months is the normal consultation period. We shall ensure that there is at least a three-month period, which will meet the hon. Gentleman's concerns.

David Chidgey: I am grateful for the Minister's intervention to clarify that point. On that note, I confirm that we do not wish to stand in the way of the progress of the clause.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 - Applications for registration.

John Bercow: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 10, line 18, leave out `may be set with a view to recovering'
 and insert 
`shall be set only in order to recover'.
 The purport of the amendment will be readily evident to you, Mr. Sayeed, the Minister and other members of the Committee. Before I develop my argument, I want to say what a pleasure it is to welcome to the Committee the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), who is one of the more august Members of Parliament, and certainly one of the more enthusiastic debaters on the Floor of the House, and, invariably, in Committee. I am conscious that he had a sad reason for his absence this morning, for which we have respect and sympathy. I was especially grateful to him for his courtesy in telephoning to notify me yesterday. I said then that I looked forward to jousting with him in Committee, and I meant it. It is a pleasure to see him here this afternoon. 
 The thrust and kernel of our anxiety about the clause and amendment relate to the scope for over-burdensome charges. I imagine that all Labour Members on the Committee are spending each and every sitting doing nothing other than studying intently the Bill's proceedings. It should not be suggested that any hon. Member is indulging in other activity—reading letters, books or anything of that sort—because that would be out of order and not acceptable to you, Mr. Sayeed, and we must be wary of your strictures. Hon. Members will therefore be aware that subsection (2) states: 
 The level of fees so prescribed may be set with a view to recovering the reasonable costs incurred by the Secretary of State in connection with the administration of this Part.
 That leads immediately to two thoughts. First, there is the old objection and query in relation to the term ``reasonable''. What is reasonable? One person's reasonable conduct is another person's utterly unreasonable conduct. We know, because we are always peppered with that point—which I say while looking askance at my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who is a member of the profession—by lawyers. They are wont to patronise us—although I am sure that my hon. Friend would not do so—by saying, in a slightly imperious, and, occasionally, even sanctimonious tone, ``The term `reasonable' is well understood in the legal profession. The hon. Gentleman really ought to understand that this is known in law. There is potential for it to be justiciable. It can be adjudicated in a court, everybody understands what we are talking about, and therefore nobody would exceed what is reasonable.'' Of course, that does not remove the potential for disagreement about what constitutes reasonable conduct. 
 However, to illustrate precisely how reasonable my hon. Friends and I are being, which will not come as a surprise to you, Mr. Sayeed, but might cause eyebrows to be raised on the Government Benches, I say at the outset—as will be clear from the wording of the amendment—that cavilling at the use of the term ``reasonable'' is not our principal purpose in tabling it. We could argue the toss about what constituted reasonable conduct, and I would be interested to hear thoughts from Ministers about what they have in mind. 
 Those listening to our proceedings now who were not listening this morning would not have heard a nugget from the Minister, which they should therefore veritably treasure. If they had heard the Minister saying this morning that the Government were already thinking in terms of a sliding scale of charges, depending on whether the business was large or small, it is not unreasonable to consider that, when pontificating about the merits of such a scale, he may have given some thought to the various elements on it. It almost beggars belief that a keen, intelligent, forward-thinking and, indeed, mightily ambitious Minister like the hon. Gentleman would fail to have given any thought—

Keith Simpson: Which Minister?

John Bercow: I was referring to the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), although it would have been reasonable of me to have been referring to the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill). However, the latter was not referred to in The Guardian yesterday as a future leader of the Labour party. The hon. Member for Norwich, South has been, and that could be the cause of internal tension or friction. I hope that it is not. [Interruption.] The Ministers shaking hands is not very reassuring. I recall the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his immediate predecessor not merely shaking hands in public, but kissing each other. However, that did not mean that they were not knifing each other mightily in the back behind the scenes. The fact that we have witnessed a public shaking of hands in front of your august chairmanship, Mr. Sayeed, is not revealing or inconclusive.
 Surely the Minister of State would have given some thought to such charges. If we are to be sure that the proposed fee levels will be reasonable, it is not unreasonable to ask him to insert in the Bill the catch-all safeguard constituted by the word ``only''. That might be the only point in this afternoon's consideration of the amendment. We want the clause to state: 
 The level of fees shall be set only in order to recover the reasonable costs incurred by the Secretary of State in connection with the administration of this Part.
 There is good reason to be concerned about such a point and to flag up the desirability, if not the necessity, of that all-encompassing protection that our amendment would confer. I say that, not least because I hope that I shall be in order in so doing, but because I have previously flagged up such worries about levies, charges and fees in Standing Committees, and on the Floor of the House in a ten-minute Bill on taxation and the right to know on 6 June last year, when I referred to the phenomenon of stealth taxes. In short, too much tax is taken from too many people who are told too little about it. That is a burgeoning phenomenon under this Administration. 
 I shall not burden the Committee with details because you, Mr. Sayeed, would not approve if I were to dilate on the subject, but we know that the typical family is paying an extra £670 a year in taxation under this Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to publish the figures that show the impact of direct and indirect taxes on the typical family and on households in other income deciles. We know that he was rightly excoriated in paragraphs 90 and 35 of the Treasury Committee report of April 2000 for his refusal to provide such information to the House on which proper judgments could be made about the fee-raising, charge-levying and tax-hiking policies of this Administration. 
 The problem that led us to table such an early amendment is that the Bill provides many opportunities—I put it no more strongly than that—for the Government to raise additional funds for the Treasury. That is only one of many areas in which we are dependent on and subject to the tender mercies of new Labour's aspirant Prime Minister, if I may so describe the Minister of State. I may be embarrassing him today by praising him repeatedly, but he deserves that accolade. He has done a lot of good work. He is a talented, highly important, extremely influential, greatly respected man, who has many commitments and a full diary. It is right that I should highlight his significance. He would not want to court extensive and growing unpopularity, either in Norwich, South—even if he feels that he is secure there, although we certainly would not accept that he is—or in the country at large. He has a wider initiative, which might be described as the Clarke game plan, and it would be unfortunate if anything got in the way of it. 
 The Minister has considerable political antennae, so he would not want deliberately to impose charges that would upset large numbers of small businesses. Most businesses in the sector are small, and some are micro businesses. However, although he is a powerful, assiduous and ambitious Minister, he is only a Home Office Minister. I say that in no discourteous or pejorative sense—but he is not a Treasury Minister. 
 Our concern is that, if there is a provision for charges to be levied, fees to be imposed and stealth taxes to be raised, and the Government get into a difficult situation, the Minister will as likely as not—in fact, it is as sure as the passage of the seasons—be approached by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would not be approached by a mere junior Treasury Minister; only the most senior Minister could approach him. The Chancellor will say, ``'Ere, you remember clause 18 of that Vehicles (Crime) Bill? You did manage to hold the line and keep clause 18 as it stood, didn't you? I hope that you did not allow those beastly Conservatives, the hon. Members for Buckingham, for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and for Vale of York to insist on the insertion of the amendment `shall be set only in order to recover'.'' 
 The Minister may be able to say, ``No, Chancellor, I withstood the tide and held back the flood. I fobbed them off and told them that I fully intended to be reasonable. But of course that was a couple of years ago and the situation is different now—some people will have forgotten.'' Fortunately, however, not everyone will have forgotten, and verbatim accounts of the proceedings will be available, as they are not for yesterday afternoon's defective proceedings of the Programming Sub-Committee. I want the Minister to put on record an absolute commitment, as reflected in a willingness to accept our amendment, that the fees will be set only so as to recover reasonable costs. 
 On Second Reading, we expressed our desire that the Bill should tackle crime effectively but not be over-burdensome to businesses. I said on that occasion: 
 There are real grievances about the Bill.
 If memory serves me correctly, I said that in response to an uncharacteristically rude and abrupt sedentary intervention from the Under-Secretary. The Home Secretary's attention was momentarily distracted—he was engaged in a conversation—and I exhorted him to listen to the point that I was making. The Under-Secretary yelled out, in a most undignified manner, ``Why should he listen?'' I do not have the text of the debate in front of me, but if the Under-Secretary checks, he will find that that is correct. I replied that the Home Secretary should listen because 
 There are real grievances about the Bill. There are anxieties about cost. There are concerns about over-regulation. There is a desire that it should achieve the purpose that has been established for it.—[Official Report, 18 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 50.]

Keith Hill: Rather good.

John Bercow: The Under-Secretary chunters ``rather good''. I can only assume that he is not making a self-reference, for no man should be judging his own cause, but generously and gratuitously volunteering praise for my instinctive response on that occasion. The Government's record is not good. Under Labour, the average family is paying out about £670 a year more in tax, as I said. Much of that rise comes in the form of stealth taxes. That is important. They are not taxes publicly stated, levied and defended by Ministers in the honourable traditions of this House. That is a source of anxiety.
 The Confederation of British Industry, which Ministers are happy to pray in aid periodically when it suits them, has stated that businesses are paying an extra £5 billion a year in taxation under Labour. I am sorry to repeat the point, but I must refer to it again in the context of the amendments. We are concerned particularly about small businesses. I do not want to give the impression for a moment that I am insouciant about the costs and burdens imposed on larger companies—a good many of which, though by no means all, are represented by the CBI. I am not in any way relaxed about the burdens that they face. They are substantial engines of growth, productivity, export performance, wealth generation, and improvement of individual living standards. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that the very big companies can often take care of themselves. If I may say so, Mr. Sayeed, this is not an occasion for you to declare any interest but you have considerable experience of large-scale business activity. Costs can be passed on and to some degree absorbed. We on the Opposition Benches are worried about the position of small companies. 
 The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, who is furiously scrutinising a document of uncertain provenance on the Bench in front of him, is wont from time to time in debate to claim that he is an authentic representative of the interests of small businesses, though on what authority he feels able to declare that I do not know. Perhaps he believes that they are represented in substantial numbers or impressive form in the Ellesmere Port and Neston division; I do not know. What I do know—and this is very significant—is that 99.6 per cent. of British businesses employ fewer than 100 people, that they account for approximately 57 per cent. of the private sector work force and that they generate about two fifths of national output. The interests and concerns of that sector of British commerce, therefore, are of the highest importance. 
 Moreover, small businesses are disproportionately represented. The Minister of State is not only a distinguished, ambitious and rising Minister but an extremely upmarket mathematician—with whom I could not possibly hope to compete—and he will tell me if I am wrong. I believe that small businesses are disproportionately represented in the would-be registration plate supplier sector and, for that matter, in the motor salvage operator sector. A large proportion of such companies are relatively small businesses. Some are already parts of trade associations and a great many are not. Many of them have in common the fact that they are rather small companies, so we are concerned about their interests. 
 The Bill and the clause should be dedicated to the overarching and honourable goal of tackling crime. The Government cannot be trusted with the clause as it stands—unless we receive an explicit reassurance from the Minister. We require clarification, reassurance, an undertaking that is not just an early promise but an unshakable commitment. 
 I make the distinction because we in opposition know the difference between an early promise or pledge and an unshakable commitment. An early pledge is one made early, which will therefore soon be forgotten and may be readily ditched. An unshakable commitment, even in the parlance of new Labour, constitutes a commitment from which one cannot escape. We are seeking to ensure that the costs—[Interruption.] There is chuntering from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe). If he would like to intervene, I am ready to give way to him. Does he wish to contribute? He does not. He is holding forth but only in private. We look forward to his contribution later. 
 We seek to ensure that the costs will be used only to cover the necessary administration expenses of the scheme. ``Reasonable costs'' is suitably vague: it requires to be explained and tightened. I hope that the Minister will oblige us in that regard. Above all, I emphasise that what matters is reassuring not Opposition Members but the sector. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the overriding goal to cut crime, deter the criminal, help to apprehend those who commit offences and cover the reasonable costs that are incurred in establishing the scheme. Will he please be sure to avoid errors of omission or commission, the effect of which would be to damage legitimate operators, undermine an important sector and threaten to reduce employment in it? 
 These are sensible proposals. The Minister suggested earlier that one of our proposals might have the unintended—but undesirable—consequence of increasing the burden on business. I cavilled at that, and still do. I hope that the Minister will accept that the desire for specificity and the charge to be limited to that necessary to recover, but not exceed, costs is the clearest indication that the Conservative party is the friend of business. 
 The concern about the effect of the costs on small businesses, which we debated in an earlier sitting, is raised again by the wording in the Bill that allows those costs to be set at the whim of the Government or their advisers at a later date. I am sure that the Minister who is currently responsible for the Bill has no intention of placing a burden on business, but who is to say that a future Government, of whatever complexion, might take the opportunity to make the costs unreasonable? That may seem pedantic, but in many parts of the United Kingdom small communities rely on a local, small garage for all their services, one of which is replacement number plates. Those garages may be sole traders, scratching a living, as most small businesses have to these days. The point is relevant and important. I should not wish to see such a service become extinct in small communities because the costs of registration made it uneconomic for small enterprises to continue providing it. 
 I have sympathy with the amendment. The only saving grace that I can find in the terms in which the Bill is drafted is that it may be in the Government's mind that the charge envisaged for the service should be less than the cost. I will allow the Minister to respond to the proposed amendment, but first I give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham.

John Bercow: A good nature and a charitable instinct are worth while in our deliberations, especially as we have two weeks of them ahead. I am happy to concede that there is a plentiful supply of both qualities in the hon. Gentleman, but I urge him not to overegg the pudding. On almost any reading, I suspect that it is a triumph of optimism over reality to suppose that the Government could have it in mind to raise in fees less than the reasonable costs. Clause 18 does not state that it will meet the reasonable costs, but that
 The level of fees so prescribed may be set with a view to recovering the reasonable costs, 
which, in the language of new Labour seems to amount to much the same thing.

David Chidgey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and his accuracy in defending the wording of the Bill. However, I wanted to make the point that the looseness and opaqueness of the wording is such that that is the impression that the Government could, perhaps unwittingly, be giving us in allowing this wording to become part of the legislation. I am happy to conclude now and await responses from the Minister and other members.

Anne McIntosh: It is a great pleasure to serve under your Chairmanship, Mr. Sayeed, and welcome you to this Committee. I am also delighted to see here the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. May I express my personal condolences for the reason why he was prevented from being here this morning and offer him my deepest sympathy.
 I declared an interest this morning, Mr. Sayeed. I am a member of the RAC Foundation public policy committee, which brings certain benefits. You will be apprised of the fact that I am a non-practising Scottish advocate from references that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham made to lawyers, which I hope have brought his discreditable remarks about my profession to an end. Avid readers of The House Magazine will also know that I am the offspring of a Scottish-Danish alliance and so I rise to my feet in this Room in some trepidation, realising that the painting alludes to Alfred inciting the Saxons to prevent the landing of the Danes.

John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend accept that, without in any sense casting aspersions that would be disrespectful to admirable Scots, the Danish part of the equation, especially in the light of the recent referendum, is especially commendable?

Anne McIntosh: I thank my hon. Friend. Obviously, stubbornness and patience are perhaps two of the best-known qualities of the Danish character. I rest my case there.
 May I draw the Minister's attention, and ask him to direct his well-known assiduous qualities, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham referred, to clause 18 and our amendment No. 19. Speaking as a motorist, I am concerned that clause 18 could be perceived as taxation by stealth were the Minister minded not to support our amendment. Our wording is preferable to the Government's original wording for the simple reason that it sets out that the charges and costs incurred 
shall be set only in order to recover 
the actual costs raised. The costs are not insubstantial. We are told, most helpfully, on page 13 of the explanatory notes that the first year's cost alone of registration, record systems and administration will amount to almost £6 million. We are told that thereafter the continuing and recurrent annual cost will be almost another £1.5 million for record systems and almost another £2 million for administration costs, leading to an overall total of annual recurrent costs of more than £3 million. That is not an insubstantial cost. 
 We are told that these costs will be distributed. The Minister referred earlier to some 27,000 businesses and a registration fee of £50. The average cost for business is deemed to be a set-up cost of £219 and an annual ongoing cost to each business of £121. I just wonder whether the purpose of the Government proposals is to close down some of these 27,000 businesses by stealth.

John Bercow: Is my hon. Friend aware that as subsection (2) of the clause stands, it threatens to breach the commitment made by the Chancellor in April 1997 when he said in the foreword to Labour's business manifesto:
 We will not impose burdensome regulations on business, because we understand that successful businesses must keep costs down.
 Is my hon. Friend aware that, as it stands, it also violates the commitment made on 25 November 1998 by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who, speaking in the House, said: 
we have no intention of introducing any legislation that presents a burden on business and reduces the competitiveness of British firms.—[Official Report, 25 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 214.]
 Is not that game, set and match?

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, especially for drawing attention to the Chancellor's remarks. I cannot fault the Chancellor's education, as he and I both had the good fortune to go to the University of Edinburgh. He was the first-ever student rector to be elected; he was already a budding politician at that time. He would be fearful of the compliments paid to the Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. Why would the Chancellor say, on the record, that the present Government—possibly soon to be the past Government—are committed to keeping costs down when what is proposed will be an additional cost? I should be most grateful if the Minister would put my mind at rest and say that he has decided against a national monopoly. This morning, he referred to the Swedish position and, wearing another hat as a new member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I hope—

Stephen McCabe: I appreciate the hon. Lady's genuine concern about costs. Does she accept that an effect of the proposed registration is that it will separate legal from illegal businesses? Legal businesses will benefit as a direct result of taking illegal competitors out of the market. Does she further accept, bearing in mind her comments about her parents' car, that the predicted saving of £112 million per annum in vehicle value as a result of these measures must also be borne in mind when considering any question of cost?

Anne McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman's second point pre-empts what I intend to say in a moment.
 On his first point, we do not want too make this too much of a Scottish monopoly—

John Bercow: Oh, go on!

Anne McIntosh: Perhaps we do.
 I hope that the Government's ambition in this respect is realised; it would be regrettable if the illegal businesses were the only ones that could afford the start-up costs and the high recurrent annual running costs, meaning that the legal businesses could not compete. 
 We hope to make a one-day visit to Stockholm and I shall take that opportunity to be briefed on how the national monopoly works there.

Charles Clarke: Hear, hear.

Anne McIntosh: I put it on record that the Minister applauded that initiative, which is most welcome. If I had a vote, I would increase his leadership potential.
 The initial set-up costs of registering number plate suppliers have not been quantified, but they are not expected to be substantial. The explanatory notes state that insurance companies would benefit from a reduction in vehicle crime, a point to which the hon. Member for Hall Green alluded. The Government may be privy to information that we are not aware of, but what conclusive evidence is there that the insurance industry will pass the savings on to the businesses that will incur registration costs? I shall certainly refer to that matter in subsequent clauses. There is alarm in the motor industry about the matter, especially in the RAC; when the Government consider hypothecation in clause 37, insurance savings—the Government envisage that fewer vehicles will be stolen as a result of the measure—or income received through speed cameras should be passed on to defray the costs of registration. Otherwise, like many Opposition Members, I fear that there will be an increase by stealth in the cost of motoring. I cannot believe that that is what the Government envisage. I hope that the Minister will accept that our wording is much more precise and would tighten the Bill. 
Mr. Hill rose—

Jonathan Sayeed: Order. Before I call the Under-Secretary, I remind hon. Members that during this sitting we must cover clauses 16 to 30, and at this rate, we shall not do so.

Greg Pope: On a point of order, Mr. Sayeed. We must conclude our consideration of clauses 16 to 30 by 11.25 am on Thursday.

Jonathan Sayeed: I beg the Committee's pardon, but the point remains that at this rate of progress we shall not be able to have a full debate on all the clauses.

John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Sayeed. I should like to establish the basis for the decision that we must reach clause 30 by the conclusion of the third sitting. As the matter was debated at considerable length yesterday, and as I read the draft resolution, I am of course aware of the end date of 23 January and that we have been allotted only 23 hours' debate for consideration of all 45 clauses and any number of amendments submitted thereto. However, I was not aware that it was obligatory for us to conclude our consideration of clause 30 by the end of the third sitting.

Jonathan Sayeed: It was a resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee that consideration of clauses 16 to 30 should be completed between the second and third sittings. If insufficient time remains for debate at the end of the third sitting, the Questions will still be put, but no debate will have ensued.

Keith Hill: I am grateful for your elucidation, Mr. Sayeed, of that point. I take on board your rejoinders to proceed with all brevity, which is exactly what I intend to do. First, however, I associate myself with the general rejoicing at your presence in the Committee. I am delighted to be serving under your impartial, even-handed and enlightened chairmanship, which I hope will give me a fair wind for the rest of the Committee.
 I should also like to express my unqualified gratitude to the hon. Members for Buckingham and for Vale of York for their warm welcome to me to the Committee and for their kind expressions of sympathy. When the hon. Member for Buckingham began his speech, and said that he looked forward to our future jousting, I responded with some zeal, which rather dissipated more than half an hour later, when he chose to sit down. I rather resented his suggestion that I had not appeared in The Guardian. As a former resident of my constituency, he will be keenly aware of the Streatham, Clapham and Dulwich Guardian. I am rarely absent from the pages of that august and excellent journal, which is so avidly read by my constituents.

Keith Simpson: They read the situations vacant column.

Keith Hill: In response to the sedentary intervention of the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk, there are no vacancies in Streatham.

John Bercow: Notwithstanding some rather pernicious and unfounded rumours to the contrary, will the Under-Secretary take it from me that the fact that I ceased to live in Streatham—not in anticipation of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill—in November 1993 was unrelated to the fact that 19 months previously he had been elected the constituency's representative?

Keith Hill: I am most grateful for that reassurance. It was for me an unqualified pleasure to be able to represent the hon. Gentleman in Parliament. However, although it may sound a little churlish, I cannot say that it was an unqualified pleasure for me to be represented by the hon. Gentleman on Lambeth council.
 The hon. Member for Buckingham asked for an insight into the Government's thinking about the level of fees. With your indulgence, Mr. Sayeed, I shall engage in a mini tour d'horizon on the matter. Although no detailed calculations have yet been made on the level of fees, it is not anticipated that the administrative costs will be onerous. A register with about 25,000 entries would be far simpler for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to administer than the vehicle register, which is its major responsibility and which has about 28 million entries. 
 The costs of registration may differ according to the size of the business. For example, a national chain store with multiple retail outlets will have a larger and more complex entry on the register than a small business operating from a single outlet. The registration fee may be varied, therefore, to reflect that: in practice the fee would be lower for small businesses. I will revert to that point in due course. 
 May I also scotch the canard which I hoped that we had managed to scotch in the Second Reading debate. I emphasise for the benefit of the hon. Member for Buckingham that this is not a tax; it is a fee to meet the reasonable costs of administration. There will be no surplus from the fee. In addition, it is a charge to business. Business has been consulted, and will be consulted further, about the level of fees. 
 I see that the hon. Member for Buckingham is eager to intervene, but let me turn briefly to the point made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh. The setting of the fees will not be, as he suggested, at the whim of Government because it is a matter of consultation. It has been, and will continue to be a matter of consultation. I understand his concern about small businesses. He talked about garages in rural areas operating at the margin. I hope to be able to reassure him yet further about the level of fees in relation to businesses of that description. 
 Does the hon. Member for Buckingham wish to intervene? I want to deal with other points raised in the debate.

John Bercow: In that case, I ought to come in now, if the Minister will forgive me. He has just said—I think that the verbatim report will confirm what I say—that there will be no surplus from the fee. The hon. Gentleman is intellectually formidable, so I am sure that he can anticipate what I am about to say. If that is so, and the intention is only to recover the administrative costs, why are the Government not prepared to insert that catch-all, all-encompassing, protective, what might be described as a legislative condom—the word ``only''. [Laughter.]

Keith Hill: I certainly will not rise to that, but I am coming precisely to that point. The hon. Member for the beautiful Vale of York made two points.

Keith Simpson: The beautiful Member for the Vale of York.

Keith Hill: Well, there you go. She talked about the economic impact assessment. I reiterate that the registration fee is a one-off. The other costs to which she alluded relate to the cost to businesses of the keeping of records and checks prior to a sale. I emphasise that those costs were discussed with and provided by business as part of the consultation process in preparation for the Bill and that the businesses consulted supported the provisions of the Bill. So we feel reasonably confident, about the likely costs of the measure.
 The hon. Lady also raised the issue of insurance companies. It is perfectly true that there is no guarantee that they will pass on savings accrued as a result of a reduction in vehicle crime. However, as she and I both know, and as the Committee knows, it is a very competitive industry which needs to keep charges to a minimum. We hope that those costs will not be passed on, but we are certainly not in a position—I am sure that the Opposition will agree—to legislate on such a matter. 
 I turn to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Buckingham. I shall resist it because it would not have the effect that the hon. Gentleman intends, which is to reduce the burden on businesses, especially small businesses. The effect of the amendment would be that the fee had to meet the administrative costs incurred—in other words, the fee could not be less than that. The clause provides that the fee cannot be more than the ``reasonable costs incurred'' in administration, but it could be less. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Eastleigh, even if it is a source of consternation to the hon. Member for Buckingham.

David Chidgey: I agree with the Under-Secretary on both points, but in passing he raised an issue that I raised earlier. Although, with the best intent, the charges may be no more than the administration costs of the scheme, I have yet to see anything in the Bill that would control, monitor or audit those costs. Departments are not particularly adept at keeping costs down. Perhaps I have missed the point, but I would like to be reassured that the costs of the registration scheme on which the fees are to be based will be monitored to ensure that they are not excessive and are no higher than one would expect in normal commercial practice.

Keith Hill: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the monitoring of departmental costs at every level of the public sector—and, for that matter, in the private sector. He knows that it is not normal practice to include such a provision in legislation. He knows also that innumerable agencies are in the business of bearing down on costs in the public sector, not least the National Audit Office. It is the Government's absolute commitment to ensure that the work of Government Departments, whose accounts are published annually, is carried out with the highest level of economy. I am sure that we shall continue to bear down strongly on that.
 I might add that, in general, the fee will be set by regulation. I come back to the point that, because the level will be enshrined in regulation, it will not be possible for a Government Department to change it on a whim. I hope that the hon. Member for Eastleigh has been reassured by the general thrust of my observations.

John Bercow: I remain convinced, even if, at least within the triumvirate, I am in a minority of one—it is the result of a typical majority alliance between Liberal and Labour Members—that my textual exegesis is correct and that of the Minister and the hon. Member for Eastleigh is not. The only scope for ambiguity—and therefore the only glimmer of hope that the cost might be lower than the cost incurred by the authority—is the rather ambiguous phrase ``with a view''. Inserting the word ``only'' is undoubtedly a protective mechanism; the inclusion of ``with a view'' seems suitably vague, particularly in the absence of the protection of the word ``only''.

Keith Hill: We may have to disagree on this point, but it seems pretty obvious that the Bill allows for the possibility of the fee being less than the administrative cost. The amendment would certainly not permit a lower fee level in certain circumstances.
 The present draft provides greater flexibility than that proposed in the amendment. In the light of the evidence of the Government's open-mindedness and flexibility, I hope that the hon. Member for Buckingham will judge it right to withdraw his amendment.

John Bercow: I was happy to make the argument, and I remain unconvinced despite the soothing bromides of the Under-Secretary. One could argue the toss about the wording. I am not a lawyer—something that I say as a matter of pride—so I do not claim that the wording of the amendment is perfect. I think that I heard the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston chunter from a sedentary position something about our amendment being less desirable than the original wording of the clause due to the deletion of ``may'', which implies ``perhaps'', and the insertion, among other words, of ``shall''. That is to say that there is a prescriptive rather than permissive character to our amendment, and that the permissive rather than prescriptive character of the clause might admit a lower fee to be charged than that required to cover costs.
 Even if that were true—a generous concession that I am disinclined to make—we would have to be guided to some degree by past practice and available evidence. One does not need to look into the crystal ball so far as this Government are concerned when one can, perhaps at leisure, read the book.

Andrew Miller: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to look into the crystal ball—I want him to read the words of the clause. It uses the words ``prescribed'', as in clause 30, ``may be set''—not ``shall be set''—and ``reasonable costs''. Although he is not a lawyer, as I am, he will understand that ``reasonable'' means reasonable in the circumstances. The clause standing part of the Bill would be much better in terms of the burden on business than his suggestion.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is bidding strenuously for recognition from his colleagues for his good efforts, but he is stretching a point.

Andrew Miller: I am right.

John Bercow: No. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. He is an assiduous contributor to our proceedings and in the House, so I am sorry to say that he is usually wrong. Given the law of averages, he is occasionally right. He sometimes stumbles on the truth by accident rather than design, but this is not such an occasion. He is wrong, as our amendment specifies that the charge
shall be set only in order to recover.
 It would not permit anything beyond the recovery, and it specifies that recovery be involved. That is not what is said by the clause. 
 I am bound to say to the hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary that no amount of pedantry on their part will suffice to make their case, when the case that they seek to make, or at least assiduously to propagate without any fixed commitments, is in contravention of their Government's record over the past three and a half years. Unexpected charges have been consistently levied, hidden taxes have been imposed and burdens have been increased in defiance and violation of earlier undertakings to the contrary. 
 It would be a reassurance if the Under-Secretary were to say, categorically and in terms, that on no account would the unamended clause be used to cover a larger sum than that required to meet the cost. It is unsatisfactory for him to dance on the head of a pin in a rather undignified and unpersuasive fashion, simply saying that his clause would permit, in certain circumstances gloriously undefined, a lower charge than that required to meet the cost, without any serious indication that that is what the Government intend to do. It is especially unsatisfactory in the light of the fact that he is not even prepared—let us be clear about the scale of the disingenuousness—to make a pledge that there will not be a larger sum raised than that necessary to meet costs. 
 Not only is the Under-Secretary not prepared, if I may indelicately observe, to put his money where his mouth is by saying in what specific circumstances the charge would be lower than that necessary to meet costs—which would be an earnest of his good intention—but he is not even prepared to pledge that the sum raised will never exceed the sum required to meet the costs. I remind the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston that the amendment absolutely commits the legislation on that point. It makes it clear that no more money could be raised than that which is necessary to meet costs. The Government are not prepared to make that commitment.

Keith Hill: Let me make one last effort to offer all necessary reassurances on the matter. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that the power to raise fees must be granted by Parliament and therefore it is not possible, as he seems to be suggesting, to infer a greater power. The power to exceed the sum required to meet costs is not there. That is the ultra vires rule, which means that legally we cannot raise more than costs through fees. That is a general legal rule, and I hope that that will sufficiently reassure the hon. Gentleman.

John Bercow: I am not easily reassured, and I am not remotely persuaded by what the hon. Gentleman has said. Let me be clear. I regard the Under-Secretary as a decent cove. He is a perfectly respectable representative of new Labour and I accept that he does not have it in mind to impose a larger burden. Nor do I think that the Minister of State intends to impose a larger burden. However, with respect to the hon. Gentlemen, they are not judges in their own cause. [Interruption.]
 The Minister of State is chuntering, from a sedentary position, that I did not listen to what the Under-Secretary said. I listened to it and fully understood it. I happen to dissent from his view that it would be ultra vires to charge more than the sum necessary to meet costs, for the simple reason of the absence of ``only'' from the wording of the clause. It is the continuing and remorseless resistance by the hon. Gentleman to the inclusion of a protective wording that worries me. I am not convinced. There is no guarantee, on the basis on which the clause will proceed, that substantial unnecessary costs will not be incurred through the inefficiency of the operations of the central authority, resulting in a desire on the part of Ministers to impose an increased charge. That increased charge might not be necessary, desirable or defensible. 
 The simple fact is that we do not know what the future holds. It may be, in the end, that the charges are not extortionate or, so far as businesses are concerned, unbearable. However, it is eminently sensible for members of the Committee to flag up the concern and to propose to do something about it. With the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, let me say that it is his habitual refrain that the Government are right, that the clause should stand unamended, that nothing needs to be done, that everything is hunky-dory and that anybody who takes a different view is mad, bad or dangerous to know. I am bound to say that such epithets would more reasonably be applied, on most occasions, to the hon. Gentleman, than to me or any of my hon. Friends. I repeat that I think that the Under-Secretary is a good chap and that the Minister of State is, if anything, a better chap. We know, of course, that he is the expected future leader of the Labour party, and I do not want to be discourteous to him. 
 The fact is that I am not reassured. I do not intend to put the matter to a vote, but my hon. Friends and I might well wish to return to it at a later date. Let it be clear that, if Labour Members think that we are relenting or that there will not be further discussion on these points, I am bound to warn them that they are lulling themselves into a false sense of security, because we intend to expatiate on them as forcefully and as often as necessary to fulfil the customary and proud role of the Conservative Opposition, which is to champion the interests of legitimate businesses, small and large, with a particular concern that the interests of small business should not be damaged by the vexatious, burdensome and capricious policies of the Labour party, new and old. 
 In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill

Jonathan Sayeed: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 1—False applications—
 '. Any person who knowingly makes a false application under section 18 shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'.

Stephen McCabe: I want to concentrate on clause 18 rather than the new clause. For the record, I want to declare a non-pecuniary interest. I am the vice-chairman of the European Secure Vehicle Alliance, which is an all-party and multi-agency group set up with the express purpose of combating vehicle crime.
 I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to look again at clause 18(4). What consideration will be given to an application by the Secretary of State or individuals acting on behalf of the Secretary of State? I considered tabling an amendment on the matter, but it seemed to me that it might be dealt with more readily if I raised it on clause stand part. 
 Clause 12, which deals with the salvage industry, includes a fit and proper person test. However, there does not appear to be a similar test for clause 18. I am especially concerned about someone who might register, breach the regulations and therefore be de-registered, but who may seek to register again through a wife's name or someone else's name. I seek an assurance that, to make clause 18 meaningful and exclude people who have a vested interest in breaching the law and furthering the potential for vehicle crime, applications for registration will be subject to a fit and proper person test. I am not terribly worried about whether a Government amendment is introduced or the Minister simply assures the Committee that such a provision will be made. What I am concerned about is that the Bill achieves its purpose and that those who apply to register are subject to a proper test.

Keith Hill: I take seriously the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green, given his distinguished role in the European Secure Vehicle Alliance. I remember his speech on Second Reading, in which he brought to bear all of the knowledge that is appropriate to his involvement in that movement.
 The Government feel that the fit and proper person test is a matter of proportionality. The difference between number plate suppliers and the salvage industry—which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green said, is dealt with in clause 12—is that a significant criminal element is believed to work within the salvage industry. The salvage regulation scheme is designed specifically to deal with such matters, which is why local authorities with local knowledge will set standards for the industry by operating a fit and proper person test. By contrast, the regulation of registration plate supplies is concerned mainly with preventing criminals from taking advantage of an unregulated system of supply. The Government have concluded that the issue is not criminality within the number plate supply industry but abuse by outside parties of the industry, and that is why we have chosen not to proceed with a fit and proper person test.

Stephen McCabe: I accept my hon. Friend's point, but does he not accept that any attempt to constrain the supply of number plates will mean that the criminal element will look for another way in which to make a gain? In those circumstances, the criminal element—only a small proportion of the 27,000 suppliers, I accept—may be tempted to look for people who are willing to provide illegal number plates. It is important therefore that we make sure that those who are registered to provide number plates are of the right character. Otherwise, we shall close one area of the criminal market, but leave an opening for a new area to develop.

Keith Hill: I take my hon. Friend's observations tremendously seriously. As for his worries about registration, we shall have the opportunity to examine the procedures on registration and, indeed, re-registration as we examine the Bill. I know that he is worried specifically about counterfeit plates and at a later stage in our deliberations we shall have the opportunity to discuss precautionary measures in that regard.
 I revert to my observation about proportionality. Registration by DVLA will reduce the burden on businesses and provide the police with a single point of contact. As my hon. Friend knows, there are 27,000 registration plate suppliers compared with 3,700 salvage dealers. A fit and proper person scheme would create a large burden on the industry as well as on the DVLA and, given that our perception is that the criminality lies not with suppliers but with those who abuse suppliers, it would be inappropriate to introduce a fit and proper person test, even though we shall be introducing precautionary measures to test the authenticity of applicants in other parts of the Bill.

John Bercow: I wish to speak to new clause 1. As members of the Committee will be aware, the Bill provides for three new offences. We can see the logic of what the Government have in mind. They wish to create offences of selling false registration plates, knowingly supplying registration plates to those sell fake plates and supplying plates or their components to unregistered persons. There is a lacuna in the Bill, however, which is the absence of a provision along the lines of new clause 1. It would specify that
 Any person who knowingly makes a false application under section 18 shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
 To put it simply, it is obviously wrong for a person to seek to register when he has no justification for so doing, or to submit false particulars on the standard form, the merits of which I was commending to the Committee earlier, or on some other form. 
 Misleading the central authority and thereby becoming an established and registered supplier cannot be justified. However, the Bill does not appear to contain an offence of knowingly making a false application. 
 In other respects, the Government have taken a robust line on the need for substantial fines. The Minister said, in an earlier reference to the courts, that there would be the normal discretion as regards fines, and that he wanted to give a signal that the Government regarded the matter seriously. I believe that I interpreted him correctly as saying that he expected the maximum fine to be imposed in many cases. After all, the Government have an ambitious target, courtesy of the vehicle crime reduction action team, of a 30 per cent. cut in vehicle crime by 2004. They have made relatively modest—one might almost say snail's pace—progress towards that target in the past year or so. Therefore, it would make sense to create an offence in the Bill that would send a clear signal that it is unacceptable to submit a false application. Such an offence, and the potential imposition of a level 5 fine on the standard scale, would be consistent with the seriousness of purpose that the Government have rightly attached to the Bill. 
 I said earlier that we were anxious to ensure the security and robustness of the new regulation. The Minister said that ultimate responsibility for the provision of false information would lie with the person who knowingly provided that information. However, he said that a residual responsibility would be conferred on the DVLA to use its best endeavours to hold, and provide to other interested parties on request, the correct information. Nevertheless, the Minister and I agreed—and I think that other members of the Committee will conclude—that the responsibility for false information should mainly lie with the person who provided it. The DVLA will do its best, but it cannot be expected to get it right in every particular. Therefore, someone who makes a false application should surely be considered guilty of an offence and liable to conviction and subject to a fine. It does not seem unreasonable to propose that that fine should not exceed level 5 on the standard scale. 
 I hope that the Minister is comfortable with that idea. I am not sure why such a provision is not in the Bill, and I do not intend to pursue the point any further, but we must be consistent about the Bill's purpose and intended effect. Some hon. Members who support the Bill have occasionally criticised the Opposition for not being as committed to its objective as they are. I utterly reject that, because there is an essential concurrence between us about its purpose—there is merely some disagreement or uncertainty about its effect. As the Opposition, we are entitled to propose ways in which the Bill might be made more effective and its deficiencies or lacunae filled. That is what the new clause would do.

Keith Hill: Although I shall resist the new clause, I shall resist it in an extremely qualified fashion. I appreciate the way in which the hon. Member for Buckingham moved the new clause.
 The Bill requires a registration plate supplier to apply for registration. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that that does not deal with the possibility that someone might make a false declaration as part of that application. We accept that if a person were suspended from the register and then attempted to register while suspended under a false identity, there would be no sanction against him under the present draft. Naturally, we would hope that any false information on an application would be noticed and would be grounds for not accepting the registration. Let me say clearly that we need to look further at this matter. I agree to look at it before Third Reading. I hope that with that nod and a wink, the hon. Gentleman will not press the new clause.

John Bercow: I am very much encouraged by what the Minister has said. The Official Report tells us what words were uttered, but not how they were spoken. I see grounds for optimism in both the content and tone of what he said. The Minister at his best is an immensely reasonable fellow. This afternoon, on this point at least, he has been at his best. I hope that he is not seeking to hoodwink me or the Committee. He knows that I will belabour him for ever and a day if I feel that I have been subject to an actual or a perceived cop. That will not be acceptable. I intend to be in this House for a considerable time and I will berate him on a regular basis. But I do not think that that is the case.
 If I interpret the Minister correctly, he is saying that the Government are not sure at this stage that they need to accept the terms that I am proposing. It might not be the most effective way of tackling the problem, but they can see that it is an element that could perhaps usefully, in whole or in part, in one form or another, be included in the Bill at a later stage. Ministers are right to talk to their advisers—those experts whom we see unfailingly before us—and to representatives of the industry to come to a judgment about what would be practicable and effective. We are not interested in gestures. We have often criticised the Government on this. Sometimes they have criticised us for proposing particular policies with an eye to publicity or the appearance of robustness rather than effectiveness. Of course there should be time for reflection and consideration. 
 I am grateful to the Minister. He has given an explicit and unbreakable undertaking that we will hear further on this point before Third Reading. I hope that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that we will hear further on Report. I presume that when we come to Report, if there is to be movement on this we will hear about it. I will not press the Minister on that. I accept that he has not made an explicit commitment. He has said that we will hear further before Third Reading. I greatly appreciate that and I will not press my new clause. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 - Cancellation of registration by the Secretary of State

Jonathan Sayeed: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 21, in page 10, line 41, at end insert
`without good cause or reason'.

John Bercow: There are a number of other amendments to this clause and I hope that it is in order for me to speak to some of them. Our concern here is that the clause allows the Secretary of State to remove people from the register where he judges that they have ceased to operate as registration plate suppliers. On Second Reading, I expressed some concern about the clause. On the basis of some preliminary work in the undergrowth, I said:
I am intrigued . . . as to why 28 days was chosen. I . . . understand that the figure was a brainwave of those in his Department who advise him—
 I refer rather regularly to that benighted group of individuals, who will doubtless be duly embarrassed by now— 
though it was plucked arbitrarily from the air and there is no particular reason for specifying 28 days.—[Official Report, 18 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 47.]
 That appears accurate, as there is no good reason why 28 days is the best period. In preparing for Second Reading and talking to a number of people, I simply could not work out why that time period was chosen. Obviously it is roughly equivalent to a month and it is four weeks; those two things are not quite the same but are not very different. However, I could not see any good reason for choosing 28 days, and the Government did not provide an explanation on Second Reading. 
 I think that I am right in saying—I do not have the Minister's words in front of me, but I feel sure that he will have—that the Minister conceded that the figure of 28 days had not been set in concrete and that there was no absolute justification for it. I think that I am also right in saying that there is no particular precedent for the choice of 28 days. 
 A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are concerned that a registration plate supplier could cease to practise his trade or profession for a period because of entirely legitimate reasons. That should not result in his or her de-registration. For example, someone might go away for a period of weeks on family, business or other duties that required his or her temporary absence from the United Kingdom, possibly at short notice and without the opportunity to notify the DVLA of the intended absence. The individual might go away for a period of days and close the business for that period, without knowing exactly how long he or she would be absent. In those circumstances, potentially to be subject to what might be described as commercial defenestration seems a punitive consequence. A number of my colleagues and I are unhappy about that. 
 I was looking to Ministers to say why they chose what they chose and whether they would consider choosing something else instead. I have suggested the figure of 60 days simply because, if there were uncertainty about someone's motivation for being absent and doubt about why he or she was not practising, a two-month period would allow at least the potential for inquiries to be made. It would allow the individual who has entirely innocently ceased to trade, for urgent reasons that perhaps cannot be reported or explained to the authorities in 28 days, the scope to make those reasons apparent. 
 I got the impression from Ministers that their minds were not entirely closed on the subject. I said that someone might cease to trade because of personal circumstances or family considerations. I was worried because the Minister stated on Second Reading with, I think, uncharacteristic hubris—which I hope that he will be inclined to revisit—that 
only a genuine cessation of trade will result in de-registration. The operator will not be removed from the register without notice; he will be notified prior to any de-registration and will thus have the opportunity to make representations if he has not ceased trading.—[Official Report, 18 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 114.]
 If I am permitted to say so—I intend to do so unless I am subject to your strictures, Mr. Sayeed—that does not answer the core point. It would be perfectly reasonable for a legitimate business man to be unable to trade or even to appeal—I emphasise this important point—against de-registration in 28 days. 
 In those circumstances, it is surely right that there is some protection, which is why we propose lengthening the initial period from 28 to 60 days. That would, I hope, preclude many legitimate businesses from facing the de-registration process in the first place. We also want to include the caveat of 
without good cause or reason.
 That is to say, people should not be de-registered simply for failing to trade for 28 days, without good cause or reason. That protective device would catch people in circumstances such as I described—urgent family or personal business that necessitates the sudden closure of the business for an uncertain duration. 
 An analogy might be more meaningful. We must always be conscious of the fact that we are proposing, albeit perhaps justifiably, a rather specific and almost exceptional system for this type of business relative to others. I believe that the hon. Member for Eastleigh touched on that point earlier. He said that the vast majority of businesses, although they must comply with health and safety legislation and all other aspects of the law, are not subject to a specific registration procedure. 
 For example, no registration procedure applies to fruiterers, although they are important business people. There may be a good reason for that. Most fruiterers are not a vehicle—if that is not an unfortunate and unintended pun—for the commission of criminal offences. That is why they are treated rather differently and why a registration procedure, or a Fruiterers (Crime Reduction) Bill, is unnecessary, whereas a good case can be made for this Bill. Nevertheless, the example is analogous in a sense, and I hope that it will commend itself to those members of the Committee who regularly walk the high street or attend their village stores. 
 Fruiteries, grocery stores or corner shops—micro-businesses, with which, Mr. Sayeed, you will be familiar from your own Mid-Bedfordshire constituency, many of whose villages, I imagine, contain exemplary cases of such stores—might from time to time stop trading. They are family businesses, and circumstances may arise that cause those who run them to down tools and accept a loss of business because they must go away. That could happen to a registered plate supplier, and it is surely right that we should build in maximum protection for those who stop trading with good cause or reason that might take the authorities some time to establish. 
 We also propose to alter the de-registration process. The Secretary of State should not be allowed to assume that the business would never again be included on the register. The de-registration process should also include sufficient information about being added to the register once more. The register should be an enabling rather than a disabling device, and we should take great care not to de-register people in a short time without giving them an adequate opportunity to show why de-registration is not justified. 
 I hope that I have, in accordance with the Minister's earlier strictures, explained in fairly short order the main purport of the amendments. We want to protect legitimate businesses and give them an opportunity to explain that their temporary cessation of trade is for entirely lawful, and possibly even noble, reasons, so that they are not penalised. I hope that, in rightly trying to ensure that the Bill is tough on crime and tough on the likely commissioners of crime, Ministers will ensure that the Bill is not also tough on those who have not a criminal bone in their bodies. I look forward to the Under-Secretary's response and to hon. Members' comments.

David Chidgey: Members of the Committee may have noticed that I tabled amendments that were not selected, calling for the clause and the following relevant clauses to be deleted. I did so because I felt that we needed an explanation of why it should be necessary for a company trading in the supply of plates to be deregistered if it ceases to trade. I am at a loss to understand how this exercise is different from any other commercial enterprise, as we have discussed at some length. The question of the length of time after which it is deemed that a company or organisation has ceased trading is one that has also exercised me. I agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham when he asks on what basis we decide on 28 days: that it is just plucked out of the air and all the problems arise from the shortness of that period.
 I have received advice from the European branch of the International Association of Auto Theft Investigators, which has looked at this issue in some detail and has advised the Government and Committees on how this legislation should proceed. One of its members has suggested, for example, that a period of six months would be more appropriate for determining whether a supplier has ceased to trade. 
 The key issue is that there must be innumerable small companies that trade sporadically in the supply of registration plates. We have already discussed the characteristics of rural communities and small garages. It is quite likely that, in many cases, the plates are supplied at irregular intervals. It does not seem reasonable to me that if a garage happens not to sell a plate for 28 days it should be deregistered. That does not seem to be in the spirit of what we are trying to achieve. I would suggest to the Minister, therefore, that due consideration be given to the characteristics of the trade when trying to determine the period after which a trader is deemed to have ceased to trade and his registration should be cancelled. 
 Perhaps the most important point is to determine what are we trying to achieve by this registration and deregistration process. Surely the key issue is the audit trail by which the authorities can check that the registration plates are being legally supplied and that they are not being used to allow stolen vehicles to go back into the motor fleet. In that case, surely the most important thing is not to specify a short period after which someone is deemed to have ceased trading but to require that the records be made available to the DVLA after trading has ceased. The police and other authorities would then continue to have access to records of transactions and could determine whether illegal and criminal activities had taken place. 
 I may have missed it in the Bill, but I do not see anything there to tell me that that audit trail linking registration plates to vehicle transactions is there, is robust and is effective. It is vital to have a robust audit trail to reduce vehicle crime.

Keith Hill: The clause provides that the Secretary of State may cancel a registration if he is satisfied that the business has ceased trading as a registration plates supplier for at least 28 days, and the amendment would extend the period to 60 days—eight weeks and four days. The Government consider 28 days to be sufficient. It ought also to be borne in mind that this is not a punitive measure but only a means of ensuring that the register is kept up to date. I refer to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh and reiterate that unless the register is kept up to date, it will not be possible to supply the police, members of the trade and the public with the necessary information. It is vital, if the audit trail is to be sustained, to ensure that the register is intact and up to date.

David Chidgey: What process is envisaged by which, when a company ceases trading, the police and authorities will be informed and enabled to check? I am concerned about the bureaucratic nightmare that could arise concerning how we are to know that traders—especially fly-by-night traders—have ceased trading and how we are to trace their records.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman asks a very good question. Let me be entirely candid: I am not sure that I can give a very good answer. It appears that an assessment may be made by a variety of means of whether an institution is trading.
 The issue is not the conveying of the information to relevant bodies once the supplier has ceased trading. That can be done simply through the provisions of the Bill, by using the internet and tracing the application to the DVLA, which is the registration authority. 
 The hon. Gentleman asked an interesting question about how it will be known that the supplier has ceased trading. I am delighted to say that inspiration has winged its way to me. It will be an offence to fail to notify the registration authority that a supplier has ceased to trade, which in itself will be a major incentive to supply that information.

David Chidgey: I am grateful that the Under-Secretary recognises my genuine and serious concern, which is not at all flippant. We are dealing with a minority of people in the business who are in the criminal fraternity. The issue is about taking those people out of the business spectrum so that their crimes in vehicle theft are illuminated. It may be an offence not to tell the state that one is no longer trading, but the people involved are not the sort of people to be concerned about that. The nature of their business is to try to be as far underground and out of sight as possible. That is why I am concerned that there is no automatic mechanism to tell the authorities that an organisation has ceased trading.
 I return to my fundamental point. There seems to be nothing in the Bill to tell us how the records of every supplier that ceases to trade will be required by law to be passed on to the authorities—perhaps a local authority or the police authority—so that its audit trail remains intact. I remind the Committee that insurance companies often do not recognise stolen cars as having been stolen for three months or longer in due process. There is a serious concern that unless we get the legislation absolutely right, it will be totally ineffective.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman is on to a very good point. I am taking some time to consider it. As one ponders on his observations, it emerges that there will be various sources for the information about cessation of trading, as there will be various agencies at the local level. One thinks, for example, of trading standards officers, and the police also have a clear stake in the matter. They will be sources of information to the registration authority.
 Clarity of identification and maintaining a reasonably clean and up-to-date register, which is the object of the exercise, are precisely the reasons for the decent audit trail to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. It will be a legal requirement on the supplier to notify the registration authority of the decision not to trade. That will be a powerful source of information for maintaining a proper register. 
Mr. Bercow rose—
Mr. Chidgey rose—

Keith Hill: If the hon. Member for Buckingham will forgive me, I think that I at least owe it to the hon. Member for Eastleigh to give way to him again, during which time I may be able to peruse the further pieces of information that have reached me.

David Chidgey: I will try my best to speak clearly and slowly, giving the Under-Secretary the opportunity to brief himself using the poorly handwritten note that I can see. In his previous reply, he made it clear that he believed that we could rely on local trading standards officers and the police to undertake the extra and onerous duties of checking the whole range of traders in registration plates to ensure that they are still trading. Surely he accepts that local authorities and the police are already overburdened with work and that it would be completely unrealistic for the Bill to place even more burdens on them, particularly when it claims that no extra work will be required of them to enforce its provisions. We need measures that will make such provisions self-enforcing, and those I have yet to see.

Keith Hill: Let me add to the list of agencies that will be scrutinising the activities of number plate suppliers. As well as the police and the trading standards officers who will have a stake in the matter, VAT authorities will have an interest in who is or who is not trading. They will also require evidence of continuity or cessation of trade. I am conscious that the hon. Member for Buckingham wants to join the fray, but I want to revert to the fundamental assumption underlying the Bill, which is that number plate suppliers are not criminals. No inference is made that the problem of criminality lies with those 27,000 suppliers. We are concerned about the exploitation by criminal means of their legitimate activities, and that is what we want to bear down on. We are reasonably confident that the sorts of criminal elements that the hon. Member for Eastleigh is primarily concerned with are those who will not register in the first place.
 The purpose of Standing Committees is to prise out problems in legislation. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are talking not about the principle of who registers or who does not register but about when it should be deemed that a cessation of trading has occurred. I reassure him that we take seriously the broad arguments that he has outlined and that we shall reflect on them as the Bill is debated.

John Bercow: The Under-Secretary was gracious enough to refer to the lifeline that he was thrown, to which I had also intended to refer. It was interesting to see him consulting it and I hope that he found it useful. He was right to say that the hon. Member for Eastleigh was on to a good point. I do not want to labour matters that we have already debated and that the Minister has given us an assurance that he will reconsider, but will he at least accept that, on the surface, there is a certain incongruity about there being an offence of failing to notify the authority of a cession of trading and the absence thus far in the Bill of an offence of making a false application for registration?

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I have given him pretty powerful reassurances about it. The appropriate time before a supplier should be deemed to have ceased trading is a matter of judgment. I have said that notification that trading has ceased would be expected from the business under clause 26. The period for providing notification under that clause is also 28 days, and I must point out that no controversial amendments have been tabled to increase that period to 60 days, although one has been tabled to increase it to 42 days. However, that was tabled by the Liberal Democrats, not the official Opposition, who apparently thought it unnecessary in that case. That shows an inconsistency in their argument. Safeguards in the Bill prevent the Secretary of State from cancelling a registration when trading has not ceased. The business must be notified and, as set out in later parts of the Bill, it has the opportunity to make representations.
 Amendment No. 21 concerns good cause for ceasing to trade. The response may seem somewhat of a pettifogging drafting point, but the drafting is unacceptable. It is unnecessarily restrictive and contrary to the shared purposes of the Government and the Opposition. The amendment would restrict the ability to cancel registrations when a person ceases to trade 
without good cause or reason.
 Someone who had ceased trading as a registration plate supplier but had ``good cause or reason'' for doing so would remain on the register. That would defeat the object of having a register of number plate suppliers. The register would have to include people who were not carrying on a business as registration plate suppliers. I rest my case.

John Bercow: I see the force of some of what the Minister said, and I am happy to reflect on it. In tabling amendments, there is always the danger of the unintended consequence. I am happy to concede that the amendments could have unintended consequences. I shall not labour the point, and I shall not press the amendment to the vote. In return, however, in the relatively cordial atmosphere now enveloping the Committee, I suggest that the Minister should take into account the thinking behind our amendment and the important comments adumbrated by the hon. Member for Eastleigh.
 On the Minister's own admission, there is a certain arbitrariness in the provision. One has to choose a time scale, and judgment and fair play should permeate the process. I suspect that the Minister would admit that in different circumstances, at a different time, with a different Minister and different very bright officials offering advice, a different time scale could—and in other countries probably would—be chosen. It would be wrong to let the issue die in the ditch. I hope that the Minister, consistent with his approach on the offence of seeking falsely to register, will adopt a similarly broad-minded stance. He may be unwilling to produce alternatives before Third Reading, but I hope that he will attend to the debate on Third Reading and on Report and be prepared to consider the arguments on an on-going basis. 
 On the strength of that observation, and the important points adduced by the hon. Member for Eastleigh, I, too, am happy to rest my case. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 - Right to make representations: Part II

``a person appointed by the Secretary of State''
 and insert ``an independent adjudicator''. 
 The amendment is intended to ensure that an individual registered plate supplier who is subject to the threat of deregistration and wishes to make representations about it can be heard by an independent person. We prefer the wording ``an independent adjudicator'' to 
``a person appointed by the Secretary of State''.
 I shall not develop the point at length, as what we are saying is obvious. My concern is that on the principle—precedents may be invoked either way—that no person should be judge in his own cause and also the principles that business people should receive equitable treatment and that proper regard should be paid to protecting the interests of the ``small guy'' and the ``small gal'' against the regulatory leviathan of the state, it is surely right that the person making the representations should have a fair hearing. I hope that the hon. Member for Eastleigh is attending closely, because I would value his thoughts on the subject. What worries me is that, if the person before whom the potentially deregistered supplier appears is chosen by the Secretary of State and, in a sense, is acting on his behalf, it is not entirely clear that the process is fair. 
 I make the point honestly, but I shall not labour the argument because, in another context—I hope that you will allow me briefly to allude to it, Mr. Sayeed, because it is relevant—one could argue slightly differently. The Committee may have thought of parallels and of models of adjudication used by other Government Departments or their agencies. For example, we are all familiar with the Child Support Agency and the Benefits Agency and the fact that such matters as the over or under-payment of benefits or entitlements and the possible recovery of that money can be referred to another authority. In some cases, but not all, those authorities comprise individuals who are entrusted with responsibility by, and, in a sense, are acting on behalf of, the Secretary of State. I was recently involved in such a case but, although that authority was acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, I am pleased to say that it found for my constituent and against the Benefits Agency. That saved my constituent a considerable sum of money, which she and her husband could ill afford to lose. 
 The Minister may think that I am arguing against myself, but I am not. I am making the point that, although those who act on behalf of the Secretary of State can sometimes make a fair judgment, that may not necessarily be so. I am concerned that, especially in the early stages once the legislation has come into force, the volume of correspondence about such matters might not be remotely approximate to the volume that we habitually expect to receive in relation to cases involving the Child Support Agency or the Benefits Agency. 
 In those circumstances, it is possible that no representations will be made to Members of Parliament, that Members themselves may make no representations to the person appointed by the Secretary of State and that that person will side with the Secretary of State's initial judgment unless the threatened registered plate supplier can provide an overwhelming weight of evidence to the contrary. A case can therefore be made that it would be useful to appoint someone independent of, and separate from, the Secretary of State, who is capable of coming to a different conclusion. I simply put the thought forward. If the Minister knows of a good reason why that would not be appropriate, and if a compelling case can be made for the status quo, I shall no doubt be so advised. 
 I do not wish to be unduly suspicious, but as I speak another slip of paper is progressing from the top desk to the ministerial Bench. I may have a feverish imagination, but it occurs to me that it might not be entirely unrelated to my observations in support of the amendment.

Charles Clarke: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would prefer Ministers to speak advised or not advised.

John Bercow: I very much prefer Ministers to speak advised. I thought that I might regret saying that, and that the Minister was about to deflate me somewhat by saying that what was written on the paper was nothing to do with my observations but was simply an updated commentary on the cricket score or something similar. I am reassured to know that those who are paid to advise Ministers do not engage in such frivolities.

Keith Simpson: It says, ``You are on your own, guv.''

John Bercow: Indeed, it may. If I am right, the Under-Secretary and the Minister of State are unlikely to be put in that position by their advisers. There are two reasons for that. First, I do not doubt for a minute that their advisers are of the most impeccable quality and the highest moral probity to be found anywhere in the British civil service. Secondly, that sort of situation would tend to apply only to a Minister who was habitually beastly to his advisers. As the Under-Secretary is a decent cove and as the Minister of State is not only a decent cove by an ambitious decent cove who is in business to make friends and influence people while he greases his way up the pole, they are unlikely to be anything other than scrupulously polite to, and generous in their dealings with, their officials. I look forward to an explanation.
 The second concern that we have highlighted, in amendment No. 24—

Jonathan Sayeed: Order. We are not debating that amendment yet.

John Bercow: I apologise, Mr. Sayeed. I thought that we had reached that point.

Jonathan Sayeed: Just amendment No. 22.

Andrew Miller: The hon. Gentleman is just making his usual speech.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is unwise to provoke me. He is making a grave error if he thinks that I have only one speech in my locker, rather than a panoply of different speeches, which I intend at different stages to unleash on behalf of the Opposition. I am grateful for your timely correction, Mr. Sayeed, and look forward to the Minister's response.

David Chidgey: That was an entertaining interlude from the hon. Member for Buckingham. I think that it was the first time that I have ever known him be ahead of himself.
 However, some important points have been raised, especially in regard to the question of independence in judging an appeal from a person who wants to restore his registration. One example comes to mind. In my experience as a constituency Member, I have known taxi operators to complain to me that they did not get a fair deal when they lost their licence, issued by the local authority. It was extremely difficult to assure them that they were receiving a fair and unbiased hearing from the appointed officer in charge of issuing hackney cab licences. That is not a unique experience. Therefore, I think that the Minister might be a little clearer about whom he believes that the Secretary of State should appoint. Clearly, there is some unease about that post being delegated to a local authority officer, who may not be especially skilled in those matters and may have other issues that are more important to him or her. 
 Secondly, the hon. Member for Buckingham uses the expression ``an independent adjudicator'', but I would have been happier if he had suggested an independent tribunal, as that is a process with which we are all familiar. An organisation outside the apparatus of the state may sit and hear appeals on a range of issues—

David Kidney: Is not there a misapprehension here? Is not the process whereby the Secretary of State makes a decision whether to cancel a registration and, in doing so, allows the opportunity to make representations, an excellent measure and a model for future legislation? When a person makes representations, the Secretary of State appoints a person to hear them—the Secretary of State makes the decision. The hon. Member for Eastleigh mentioned independent tribunals and appeals; should he not examine the Bill, which provides for an appeal to the magistrate's court?

Charles Clarke: That is right.

David Chidgey: The Minister may say that, but I am not convinced. Although lawyers can set such matters out in glib terms, we deal with real people, at the sharp end. I am conscious that, when my constituents are faced with such issues, they benefit greatly from the independence of the panels that sit and adjudicate on their particular problem. I am uneasy that the Bill does not specify clearly that there will be an independent source to which an appellant may go for redress. I am not convinced that the wording in the Bill would meet that requirement.

Keith Hill: Let me make an observation on the issue of messages that may or may not wing their way towards Ministers. Although I wholly cleave to the principle of Ministers' responsibility and accountability for the decisions that they take and the measures that they recommend to the House, I have never been a supporter of the view that they should also demonstrate omniscience in all circumstances.

Keith Simpson: Very wise.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman says that that is wise, which is slightly unnecessary because I was going to say, of course, that I am living proof of Ministers' lack of omniscience. I therefore make no apology for the advice on which I operate. Indeed, I am most grateful for that advice, which has been extremely helpful on more than one occasion. In relation to the interventions of the hon. Members for Buckingham and for East Leigh—

John Bercow: Eastleigh.

Keith Hill: I apologise. I do not know how Hansard will record that confusion. However, if I have unwittingly mispronounced the name of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I apologise to him and his constituents.

John Bercow: I do not want the Minister to be embarrassed, because his error is comparatively minor. Is he aware, however, that the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce committed the unfortunate howler of referring to A Rundel and South Downs? Any civilised or half-civilised human being knows that the correct pronunciation is Arundel.

Keith Hill: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his usual ingenuity, will be able to ensure that that cadence and emphasis is appropriately recorded in Hansard.
 I feel strongly that we need to take a step back from the terminology in which the issue is addressed. The hon. Member for Eastleigh talked about appellants and redress. In that context, we are talking not about criminal activity or court accusations, but about whether a supplier is carrying on a business or has ceased to trade. It is as simple as that. We are beginning a process not of prosecution but of information gathering. In that context, it is perfectly reasonable to say that a representative of the Secretary of State should be able to interface with the number plate supplier to consider matters more carefully, hear representations and make a recommendation as to whether the business is continuing or has ceased to trade. 
 On the question of an appeal procedure, the independent adjudicator requirement is surely covered by clause 22, which provides for appeals to be taken to the magistrates courts. Clause 21 relates simply to information gathering, so that a decision can be made. Therefore, I would argue that, in due course and as part of a normal procedure, there is already provision for appeals to be heard by someone other than the registration authority. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

John Bercow: On the strength of the assurance given by the Minister, I am happy to do so. I still think that further thought should be given to the matter, but the Opposition do not intend to press the amendment to a vote. I have noted the observations that he has made, I will reflect on the arguments and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Bercow: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 12, line 4, leave out `and'.

Jonathan Sayeed: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 24, in page 12, line 5, at end insert
`and;
(d) the procedure for re-registration'.

John Bercow: Committee members will immediately see the content and purpose of the amendment. They will be aware that under subsection (8) there is a reference to a right of appeal under section 22 against the cancellation, a time within which such an appeal may be brought and the date on which the cancellation is to have effect. There is, however, no reference to the procedure for re-registration.
 Earlier in our proceedings, the Minister confirmed that an invalid application to register, in which there was incorrect information, would be a factor in denying that person subsequent registration, or delaying that registration, and that seemed reasonable. I hope, however, that it is not suggested that someone who suffers de-registration, but who at some subsequent date wishes to re-register, should not have the opportunity to do so. Ministers may be examining the matter entirely in the context of whether there has been a cessation of trade, and therefore of whether the de-registration, which may well be the subject of an appeal and the consideration of a person appointed by the Secretary of State, is thought to have been correct. 
 I invite Ministers to consider the possibility that an individual who turns out wrongly to have been de-registered should have the chance to re-register, or that an individual who has correctly been de-registered might subsequently wish to re-register on the resumption of trade. There is currently no provision for that. Will the Minister tell us why that is so, whether he will consider the inclusion of the amendment to admit such a possibility, and if not, why not?

Keith Hill: Although I will yet again have to ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment, I appreciate the positive spirit in which it was moved. It is the view of the Government that amendments Nos. 23 and 24 are redundant. There is no need to specify that a notice of cancellation must state the procedure for re-registration, because that procedure will be the same as that for the original registration. Re-registration is the same, in practical and procedural terms, as registration. If a business recommences as a registration plate supplier, it will be necessary for it to register under the terms of clause 18.

John Bercow: I understand what the Minister is saying and it seems entirely reasonable. However, if an individual is de-registered as a result of ceasing to trade, and fails to notify the authority of that cessation, would that be counted in the balance against that individual if he or she later wished to resume trade and therefore wished to re-register? Is there not a danger that because he or she ceased to trade and did not have the good sense or decency to tell the authority, there would be official uncertainty as to whether he or she was a fit and proper person?

Keith Hill: If there is a challenge to vehicle registration, we have the courts procedure outlined in clause 22. I would expect the case of an erstwhile supplier who has been de-registered but who then makes a re-registration application to be treated wholly on its merits in an entirely objective and totally professional, expert manner.

John Bercow: I am reassured by that. One of the Under-Secretary's merits is that he is explicit. Some might say that he is excitable, although I would not hold that against him because excitability is a quality—or a demerit, as the case may be—not infrequently associated with myself. However, he is specific. With all the force and eloquence that he could muster and with what looked like a sincere expression, he told me that the fact that somebody had been de-registered would not count against him if he sought subsequently to re-register on resuming trade. In those circumstances, it would be churlish of me not to accept his assurance—and I am not churlish. I am happy to accept the good spirit volunteered by the Under-Secretary and am content, on behalf of my colleagues, to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 - Appeals: Part II

John Bercow: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 12, line 11, at end insert—
 `(2A) The Secretary of State may extend the period specified in subsection (2) where he receives representations in writing after the 21 day period showing good cause why an appeal could not be brought within the given period.'.
 The purport of the amendment is clear. An individual might typically be away for the sorts of reasons that I gave earlier. There could be other business, family, or personal reasons why an individual was not able to make representations in the 21-day period and representations were subsequently to be made. In that circumstance, there should surely be flexibility for the Secretary of State. It does not currently apply. If we are to achieve the objective of firmness with fairness, which is surely what we are about, my hon. Friends and I believe that such flexibility should apply.

David Kidney: I hesitate to say that once upon a time I was a practising solicitor in magistrates courts, but confess that I have forgotten whether magistrates have the power to extend the time for an appeal if a person is out of time. Nevertheless, should not magistrates courts, rather than the Secretary of State, extend the time for the appeal if the 21-day time limit is not met?

John Bercow: I would have thought that that would fall to the Secretary of State, because it is within the relevant terms. There is some head-shaking going on from a person in the Room whom I cannot identify.

Jonathan Sayeed: Nor refer to.

John Bercow: I am guided by you, Mr. Sayeed, but if that individual could be referred to, he would be referred to as ``august''. I am influenced by that consideration. However, as I said to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) when he picked me up on something in another context, if I turn out to be wrong in Committee and we have an opportunity to debate the matter, I shall of course readily concede. I apply a similar philosophy to the Under-Secretary. If it is a matter for a magistrates court, so be it.

David Kidney: I take no pleasure in pointing out that the hon. Gentleman is wrong, I merely think that the amendment is incorrect.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whom I respect as a committed parliamentarian.
 The wording or precise categorisation is not strictly relevant to the validity of the argument, but it may be a good reason for the Minister to resist the amendment. However, even when there is little good reason to resist an amendment, it is Ministers' habitual practice to do so. We want to ensure that legitimate businesses are given the greatest opportunity to go about their trade lawfully. We want to punish the criminal, protect the innocent and create, maintain and nurture a climate in which legitimate commercial activity can survive and flourish. That is my concern in proposing the amendment. I await, with eager anticipation, bated breath and beads of sweat upon my brow, the Under-Secretary's considered response.

Keith Hill: Not for the first time, I defer to the wisdom and professionalism of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. The question is one of the consideration of powers; it is a matter of whether the Secretary of State may or may not intervene in the judgments of the courts. I must say, absolutely categorically, that it would be inappropriate to give the Secretary of State the power to extend the period in respect of named individuals. That is the best legal advice that we have, and my hon. Friend—needless to say—anticipated it in his extremely pertinent intervention.

John Bercow: I am content, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 - Keeping of Records: Part II

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Bercow: I do not want to make a big fuss on this point, although I might be tempted to make a little fuss. Subsection (2) states:
 In subsection (1) ``registered'' includes formerly registered.
 Next to that I scribbled a little emendation—``odd.'' For that reason, I should be grateful for a brief explanation of that subsection.

Keith Hill: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. Before I address that highly specific question, it might be worth my while to remind the Committee of the purpose of the clause.

David Kidney: Is not the purpose of the expression that records will need to be kept for a number of years and people might cease to be registered when they are still under a duty to keep records?

Keith Hill: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. However, the British Number Plate Manufacturers Association has suggested that records should be kept for two years, during which they would be available to the enforcement authorities for inspection. I am delighted to be able to assist the hon. Member for Buckingham on that point.

John Bercow: I am immensely grateful, and I enjoyed the experience of the Minister's response in such a way that I shall remember it for years.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 It being Seven o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to Order of the Committee [this day]. 
 Adjourned till Thursday 11 January at five minutes to Ten o'clock.